Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
4 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
were many more that were interpretive and depended on original and pri-
mary research. For example, in 1996 Znformation Processing & Manage-
ment (Rayward, 1996)published half a dozen articles embodying this new
type of work. Importantly, the articles targeted a general audience and
avoided the use of specialized language. These interpretive pieces also
helped to place the present in perspective. Included in the collection were
explorations of how early twentieth-century concepts of information han-
dling anticipated many recent ideas: They showed that the ‘Web”gener-
ation was not the first t o conceive of creatively organizing and
reorganizing separate chunks of information through “links”rather than
through rigid forms, such as books or documents.
Information historians were not alone in focusing on their history.
Librarians were also attending to information science history as well as
to their traditional interest in the evolution of the library. Information
historians contributed to the library organizations’ mid-1990s reinvigo-
rated interest in topics connected to the history of information process-
ing. One of the United States’ library history meetings led to the
publication of a collection of relevant papers (Davis, 1996). Librarians’
bibliographies of historical works also began to include works on infor-
mation science (Passet, 1994).
Meanwhile, information scientists were encouraging additional
research and publication. The two special issues of JASZS published in
1997 were of broad scope, tapped more approaches to history than usual,
and reflected the international character of the growing interest in the
history of information (Buckland & Hahn, 1997a, 1997b). Their articles
explored topics ranging from Hebrew citation indexing to the develop-
ment of libraries and scientific information systems in France and the
Soviet Union. The value of the JASIS and Information Processing & Man-
agement issues was recognized by combining them to create a book devoted
to presenting the best of the current historical scholarship, Historical
Studies in Information Science (Hahn & Buckland, 1998).
Interest continued to grow, even among scholars from other disciplines.
That led to the first Conference on the History and Heritage of Science
Information Systems, held in Pittsburgh during October 1998. Of espe-
cial importance to this meeting was support provided by the American
Society for Information Science (ASIS), which also aided in the produc-
tion of another pivotal volume: Containing almost two dozen new papers
given by historians of science, as well as those generated by scholars and
practitioners focusing upon information science, the Proceedings of the
1998 Conferenceon the History and Heritage of Scientific Information Sys-
tems (Bowden,Hahn, &Williams, 1999)provided public access to the text
of most of the meeting’s presentations. This publication demonstrated
that information history was beginning to move into the mainstream of
historical study. Concurrently, chemists looked a t their own information
system history, a long and important one predating World War I1 (Williams
& Bowden, 1999). JASZS then joined in with a double commemorative
issue that included several historical articles (Bates, 199913, 1999~).
History of Information Science 5
These publications of the late 1990s and the 1998 meeting were not
parochial: They included papers and people from around the modern
world and gave recognition to previous efforts in information history.
Importantly, some of the participants attempted to place their infor-
mation science histories in larger historicaVexplanatory contexts, such
as the modernization of the Western World, the rise of “post-industrial
society,’’and the early twentieth-century struggle between socialism and
capitalism.
The 1998 Pittsburgh meeting was significant for other reasons. In addi-
tion to the presentation of some explanatory studies, the meeting indi-
cated that scholars other than practitioners of information science were
likely to become involved in recording and interpreting its history; that
information histories could be more than reflections on methods and could
be made attractive to the general public; and that institutions other than
professional ones, such as ASIS, would be willing to support scholarly
research in the field. The Chemical Heritage Foundation and the National
Science Foundation, for example, were major contributors to the late
1990s projects and an important fellowship in information history was
established by Eugene Garfield.
Although the early twenty-first century stock market debacle, govern-
ment retrenchment, and the economic recession made financial support
difficult to obtain, historical work has continued. There is a growing list
of institutions and people attending to information science history. In addi-
tion to the efforts of those groups associated with the American Society
for Information Science and Technology (ASIST), the Special Libraries
Association is devoting resources t o a centennial history. The Charles Bab-
bage Institute in the United States has been shifting its attention from
computer hardware and its creators to the history of software, databases,
and information retrieval. Researchers in France, Spain, Germany, and
other countries have been generating their own histories (Behrends, 1995;
Fayet-Scribe, 2000; Fernandez & Moreno, 1997; Hapke, 1999; Marloth,
1996). Finnish information scientists have continued their tradition of
exploring the roots and nature of information science (Makinen, 2004).
By the mid-l990s, Asian scholars had begun another round of historical
initiatives, producing important bibliographies, anthologies, and very
impressive books and articles of historical import (Muranushi, 1994)
whose results American researchers quickly incorporated into their own
work (Satoh, 1999).
In England, in addition to the 1994 Journal of Documentation effort,
the Library History Group (recently renamed the Library and Informa-
tion History Group) has been expanding its historical reach into infor-
mation history in general. Furthermore, Leeds Metropolitan University
has secured funding for broadly defined information history initiatives.
In addition, British information science leaders have been making their
own individual contributions, such as the important works by Brian Vick-
ery (1994,2000,2004).
6 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
But scholars and institutions within the United States seem the most
active in supporting meetings and publications. A volume containing the
many papers presented at a conference at the Chemical Heritage Foun-
dation in Philadelphia held in conjunction with the ASIST 2002 confer-
ence was quickly published (Rayward & Bowden, 2004). The books from
the 2002 and 1998 conferences are a resource for the general public and
for the presently small but significant number of scholars, such as Alis-
tair Black, Mark Bowles, Ron Day, Thomas Haigh, and Shawne Miksa
who may well be the first generation of academics to center their careers
on the history of information science and related topics.
A special 2004 issue of Library ?Fends (Rayward, 2004) that focused
upon library and information science pioneers, the historical articles pub-
lished in recent volumes of the Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology (ARIST) (Black, 2006; Buckland & Liu, 1996;Warner, 2005),
a University of Illinois symposium on the role of information in the rise
of the modern world (“modernity”),and the recent appearance of a work
on the history of the relationship of intelligence work and information sci-
ence, edited by Robert V. Williams and Ben-Ami Lipetz (2005, published
after completion of this chapter), indicate that the historical initiative in
the United States will continue. No less important, the recent IEEE
Annals of the History of Computing issues on history of library automa-
tion (Graham & Rayward, 2002a, 2002b) and the publication by MIT Press
of the long-awaited and valuable history of the early online industry by
Bourne and Hahn (2003) show that more than “library-oriented” pub-
lishers will support information history.
More to Be Done
In spite of all the work accomplished thus far, there is not enough accu-
mulated scholarship to allow the writing of a comprehensive narrative
history of information science. Many essential questions remain unan-
swered and much of the existing technical historical literature awaits
translation into common language and concepts. Moreover, there are some
roadblocks to progress. University information science and history depart-
ments have yet to reshape promotion and tenure orientations so as to
encourage information history research. In addition, most of those schol-
ars writing information histories have come out of information science
rather than computer science, communications engineering, or special
libraries backgrounds: This skew in the representation of academic dis-
ciplines may have fostered a somewhat unbalanced view as to origins, the
nature of the field, and the sources of innovations (Aspray, 1985). But, it
may soon be acceptable practice to include a t least the outline of the his-
tory of information science in the curricula of professional degree pro-
grams. In time, a scholar may be able to compose an inclusive narrative,
like those for computer history, that will make the history of information
science attractive to students and, perhaps, the general public (Ceruzzi,
1998).
History of Information Science 7
This chapter reviews new literature from the last decade and points to
the many questions still to be answered in the hope of stimulating
researchers to fill the historical gaps and correct any imbalances so that
the history of information science may come to be considered as a mature
and independent academic subject.
Establishing a Context
Works serving to help place information science in context also
appeared. Importantly, a few classic books and articles on the history
of the United States government’s information policies were published
in the 1970s and 1980s. Their authors typically were persons involved
in policy creation and implementation. Burton W. Adkinson’s
(1978) Turo Centuries of Federal Information remains a central work.
Harold Wooster’s (1987) “Historical Note: Shining Palaces, Shifting
Sands: National Information Systems,” written a decade later, is also
outstanding.
From the 1970s, concerns over America’s role in what was named the
“post-industrial age” led to efforts that continue to influence historians,
including how they classify someone as an information professional (Bell,
1973). Among several studies attempting to define precisely the size and
boundaries of the emerging “information economy” was Porat’s (1977)
multi-volume work for the U.S. Commerce Department. This topic has
continued to fascinate economists (Martin, 1998; Schement, 1990).
The United States’ worries over its declining competitive position in
the reshaped world economy of the 1970s and threats to its lead in sci-
entific research created another round of intense and focused interest on
the dissemination of government-sponsored scientific and technical infor-
mation (STINFO). Adding to their older concerns over information for
Cold War science, journals such as Government Information Quarterly,
Government Publications Review, and the Journal of Government Infor-
mation published many significant historical pieces concentrating on
information policy and its relation to economic competition. Furthermore,
work began on what became a valuable series of monographs and bibli-
ographies on STINFO and government information programs in general
(Dahlin, 1990; Pinelli, Henderson, Bishop, & Doty, 1992).
R. Beniger (1986) and Joanne Yates (1989), drew grand outlines of the
history of the developing “information”economy and culture of twentieth-
century America. They defined the information field much more broadly
than previous historical researchers. Most historical works on informa-
tion science had been rather uncomplicated descriptions of the develop-
ment of the methods and techniques of book and document cataloging,
indexing, and retrieval. Other works had monitored the careers of estab-
lished information organizations and leaders. In contrast, the books by
Yates and Beniger provided sweeping, high-level views and explanations.
However, they did limit their target somewhat, for they attended to the
role of all types of information and its tools-but only within the economic
and business realms, paying little attention to information needs in the
sciences or the humanities.
Machlup’s contribution was of special importance because it was inter-
disciplinary and looked at information in a wider range of subject areas.
It included efforts by various types of economists and, importantly, stud-
ies by information specialists already engaged in historical research on
information science topics, such as Boyd Rayward (1983). Machlup was
familiar with the latest trends in European historiography and his work
served as a bridge between American and foreign scholarship and between
practitioners and social scientists. For unknown reasons, Machlup’s ini-
tiative did not lead to ongoing support for such all-encompassing inter-
disciplinary research on information science itself. This has left important
gaps in the accumulated historical literature.
The broad works of the Beniger-Machlup genre remained influential,
however-but with a few negative consequences. By defining information
history as the history of nearly all types of communications and record
keeping, they offered the temptation to investigators to avoid the diffi-
culties involved in precisely identifying information science professionals
and their contributions. Another result of the use of an all-inclusive def-
inition of (‘information’’has been to situate the origins of information sys-
tems and information science in a distant past (Brown, 1989; Headrick,
2000; Stockwell, 2001). Also, the approaches taken by the broad works’
authors have added to the difficulties historians face as they attempt to
write the story of information science professionals since World War I1
(Chandler & Cortada, 2000; Cortada, 1998). For example, while focusing
on the massive shift away from manual labor in the twentieth century
the United States statistical agencies have not usefully identified and
tracked what we commonly refer to as “information scientists.” United
States government reports do not provide the data needed to determine
the number of those who were trained as or considered themselves as pro-
fessionals. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a category for “information
scientists”but does not report their numbers separately from those of com-
puter scientists.
Other types of work in the post-Machlup era were more limited in scope
but also somewhat off-target with regard to the needs of information sci-
ence historians. Additional business histories, which focused on the role
10 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
and the classification and frequency analysis of the articles and books by
subjects and historical approaches.
The new historical publications that followed the initial works by non-
practitioners were not confined to a few topics nor to a few approaches.
There are as yet no schools of what professional historians call “inter-
pretation” that have succeeded in dominating the field and no demands
have surfaced that publication be restricted to those with historical cre-
dentials. Moreover, publication has not been confined to those whose inter-
ests and political orientations fit narrow editorial agendas. Fortunately,
there are few indications that authors will be required, as in some his-
torical fields, to orient their attention to such ideologically laced items as,
for example, race-gender-class conflicts, in each of their publications.
Much of the work has been straightforward and is being done by “insid-
ers,” that is, information professionals or academics in information sci-
ence departments. An increasing number of publications reflect a
methodological consciousness and, in some cases, the authors make use
of currently popular theories or interpretive frameworks from the fields
of literary criticism, mainstream history, the sociology of knowledge, and
the philosophy of science.
Oluik-Vukovik,1997; Shapiro, 1992).By the early 1980s, the hopes for aca-
demic status seemed bright as publications in the field became more
abstract and formalized (Lipetz, 1999). Information research had already
been conducted in the most prestigious universities and by respected
scholars such as Gerald Salton, whose work was lauded by academics out-
side the field (Harman, 1997; Lesk, 1996).
The academic progress went beyond research. A promising job market
led to information science programs for professional training being estab-
lished throughout the country.Another new generation of information sci-
entists was rising-the first to have been formally trained in the practice,
if not science, of information.
The building-block literature yields more than an outline of the “golden
age.” It provides insight into the human side of the rising profession. Many
of the articles present details on the lives of the members of the founding
generation, a group with various and fascinating backgrounds. Not all of
those who contributed to the rise of information science have been
included, however. Most of the biographies are about those persons who
identified themselves as information science professionals concerned with
retrieval and worked in government agencies o r what became large non-
profit information organizations such as Chemical Abstracts Service or
the Ohio College Library Center (now the Online Computer Library Cen-
ter [OCLC]).A few of the biographical works inform us about the lives of
those who ventured into the nascent for-profit scientific information sec-
tor and some tell of the experiences of those working within larger cor-
porate information centers. Not explicit, but identifiable in even these
works, is the theme of how people without formal library or information
backgrounds were reshaping methods, professional organizations, and
college-based training and research during the era (Chemical Abstract
Service, 1997; Wouters, 1999).
Works other than biographical ones have appeared in the building-
block literature and will be important for a future general history. There
have been studies on early technological advances, such as Susan Cady’s
(1999) article on the birth and early life of the microfilm industry. Ayoung
scholar, Shawne Miksa (2002), has contributed an insightful dissertation
that summarizes much that is known about early technology and infor-
mation processing. An “outsider’s” book on the Cold War’s Itek Corpora-
tion provided tantalizing hints about the development of advanced
techniques for information retrieval and processing for the U-2 and early
satellite photography programs (Lewis, 2002). As mentioned earlier,
chemists have looked a t their own information system history, a long and
important one that predates World War I1 (Meyer & Funkhouser, 1998).
The contributions of two building-block researchers stand out. Among
many other activities (such as his Pioneers of Information Project), Robert
V. Williams is collecting and encouraging the preservation of documen-
tary records on precomputer information machines (and allied methods
of the 1930s-1950s) and is rescuing and translating into common lan-
guage descriptions of the information methods used during the earliest
18 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
science and library science were diversely defined over time as well as
space (Bates, 2004). During the 1960s, Berkeley’s library and information
science program placed emphasis on training in operations research, sta-
tistical analysis, and social science theory. The program was then relying
upon the current ideas, and even used textbooks, of what was called the
“behavioral”social sciences. The devotion to that particular social science
orientation soon changed as “behavioralism”declined in popularity, as did
the social sciences themselves, perhaps because of the ideological ferment
of the years of the Vietnam war (Bates, 2004; Rau, 2000). Market forces
also played a part in determining programs. At Drexel University in
Philadelphia, early commitments to theory and research gave way to prac-
tical courses designed to serve the needs of the area’s large scientific infor-
mation industry (Flood, 2000). In spite of the continuities of research
patterns discernable in Bates’s (1999a)list of significant articles in JASIS,
Berkeley’s and Drexel’s experiences reinforce the conclusion that infor-
mation science has always found it difficult to carve out a domain distinct
from other fields and to establish a stable identity.
In addition, a recent long-term history of the information science pro-
gram at the University of Pittsburgh brings into question how much the-
ory and independent professionalism contributed to determining
information science research and education (Bleier, 2001).Academic self-
determination of content and programs was limited. Reliance on outside
funding targeted for problem solutions, typically from government agen-
cies, seems to have driven faculty selection as well as course and program
content. In traditional higher-educational contexts, departments without
a significant degree of independence are unlikely to be seen as a true part
of the academy-although they may generate a great deal of money for
the institution.
Unfortunately, there is not yet a comprehensive, empirical, historical
survey of information science curricula or faculty, either in the United
States or abroad. Studies of university catalogs and textbooks will yield
needed evidence on identity and status, including important information
on the credentials and disciplinary backgrounds required to become a fac-
ulty member in an information science department (Lipetz, 1999). There
are hints that such research will show long-term and continued signifi-
cant variations, at least amongAmerican programs. Some have been, and
are, technologically oriented and are hard to differentiate from computer
science programs. Others emphasize cognitive psychology.And some, like
those at Illinois and Berkeley, have had, during parts of their histories,
ties to library training, the liberal arts, and broad, near-humanistic the-
ory (Aspray, 1999).
Although there are suggestions about the nature of the history of cur-
ricula and faculty, there is a void concerning students and alumni. That
void could be eliminated. Many types of data are available to researchers
for developinga history of students’backgrounds and careers. College and
alumni records, society membership data, and even employment adver-
tisements can serve as an empirical base (Cronin, StiMer, & Day, 1993).
History of Information Science 27
What were admissions standards? What were the social and economic
backgrounds of students? What jobs did they take after completing their
education? How did information science students compare with those
trained as librarians, special librarians, computer scientists, or even those
who were shop trained? Answering these questions will help determine
the identity and domain of the science.
yet shown more than the most general relationship between the use of a
particular higher-level theory, the methods researchers employed, and
the resultant findings. Nor has it been demonstrated that theory has
played a significant part in providing status for the profession, even within
academic circles. Furthermore, it may be found that a major role of the-
ory has been to enhance the post-facto justification of work, just as there
are hints that formal scientific publications have not, in many instances,
been directly related to work by established scientists or even to commu-
nicating information to other scientists. Rather, theory and formal pub-
lication may have been of more value in determining academic status and
in guiding students during initial stages of professional training
(Frohmann, 1999).
The Unexplored
There are many unexplored questions linked to the issues of origins,
identity, and status that are relevant to the history of information science
in both the pre- and post-1970s eras. Significantly,the persistence of these
questions suggests that there are many historical parallels between the
two periods. One is the apparent disconnect between American docu-
mentalists’ methods of the 1940s-1950s and any previous methods-and
the apparent discontinuity between the birth of Web search engines and
established information science in the 1980s-1990s. Another task for his-
torians is a comparison of the critical role of federal priorities during the
Cold War to the impact of the privatization and increased commercial-
ization of information services since the 1980s in shaping information pro-
grams. In both instances, non-professionals seem to have been in charge.
Allied with both of these points is the question of the disproportionate
influence of engineers and applied scientists in the design and manage-
ment of early online systems and a similar profile for the Internet-
although information science had matured by the time of the Web
(Berners-Lee & Fischetti, 1999; Bourne & Hahn, 2003). As has been dis-
cussed, there is a parallel between the struggle in the 1950s-1970s to cre-
ate a profession that could determine itself and the turmoil created by
shifts and declines in academic funding in conjunction with what appears
to be an increasing importance of the for-profit sector in reshaping cur-
ricula and professional attitudes (Crowley, 1999; 0rom, 2000).
Classification
One topic related to professional contributions and identity has
received much attention in thematic and interpretive histories. The his-
tory of classification has been the subject of a t least two dozen historical
32 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
works during the last decade. Both universal classification systems, such
as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Universal Decimal
Classification (UDC),and less ambitious ones covering a single specialty
have been used as a basis for claims of professional status by librarians
and, sometimes, information scientists. But status concerns do not seem
to be the motives for the recent, vigorous historical interest.
Other, rather incompatible reasons account for the attention. Some his-
torians of science, using traditional approaches, have returned to the sub-
ject (Frangsmyr, 2001). But most of the literature has been created by
practicing librarians and information scientists who have maintained a
faith in professional classification work or, more recently and significantly,
by those who have become adversaries of what they see as intellectual
and cultural imposition through classification (Hjerland & Albrechtsen,
1999; Osborn, 1991).
Historians and practitioners who are appreciative of classificationwere
the first to make contributions. They focused upon the history of the librar-
ians/documentalists who began exploring alternatives to the great estab-
lished classification schemes and theories. Although many of the founding
generation of “golden age” information scientists, at least in the United
States, thought they could avoid dealing with any all-encompassingorder-
ing of knowledge, others from more traditional backgrounds, especially
in Europe, had not abandoned faith in wide-ranging classification sys-
tems. They sought to devise better and more modern schemes and theo-
ries. Their 1930s work continued, even in North America, and several
members of related groups have contributed historical articles and books
on such major contributors to modern classification theory as Ernest
Richardson and Henry Bliss (e.g., Miksa, 1998). The work of pre-World
War I1 English librarians/documentalists and the group they founded to
devise intellectually elegant classification schemes have been the subject
of several articles (see, e.g., Justice, 2004). An intellectual godfather of
their Classification Research Group, Shiyali Y. Ranganathan, has a book-
length biography (Ranganathan, 2001; cf. Sharma, 1992).
In contrast to the classifiers’approaches to their history are the works
of two groups with less benign views of classification. The first group’s
findings came from applying what is termed a “sociology of knowledge”
perspective. An early insightful work by Paul Starr (1987) on the United
States census perhaps served as an inspiration to Susan Leigh Star and
Geoffrey Bowker (19981, whose books and articles on classificationbecame
prominent in the 1990s. They (Bowker & Star, 1999) have presented bal-
anced, well researched, and clearly written histories of particular classi-
fication schemes (such as those for the international classification of
diseases and for nursing practice), showing how practical, social, and cul-
tural factors shaped the classifications and giving examples of how non-
scientific pressures and needs helped determine whether popular (but
transient) terms rather than those from established medicallscientific lex-
icons were adopted. Bowker and Star do not conclude, however, that clas-
sifications are without any objective basis. They hold that classifications
History of information Science 33
are inescapable, and, importantly, there can, and will be, real world feed-
back on the worth of various schema. Some will have a better fit with real-
ity and will be of more utility to more people than others. Professionalism
and expertise are not, in their view, unjustified impositions by elites.
The second group’s approach is less positive. Its historical interpreta-
tion of classification is marked by degrees of doubt about the worth of clas-
sification schemes (Frohmann, 2004a, 2004b; Smiraglia, 2002; Wersig,
1993). The members of this group share a pronounced skepticism about
the possibility of objectivity, possibly because they rely upon criteria and
methods associated with recently adopted versions of literary criticism
and rhetorical analysis rather than those associated with traditional
approaches to the history of ideas or the sociology of knowledge. Some of
these critics call themselves postmodernists: their stance-postmod-
ernism-and its acceptance in historical work will be addressed in the
next section.
As a consequence of applying “post-isms,” the resulting histories are
critical of classification in general. Unfortunately, these interpretive
frameworks sometimes produce evaluations rather than descriptions, with
the histories telling more about an envisioned radicalized cultural future
than about the history of classification systems (Radford, 1998).An exam-
ple of the application of the premises of such schools of analysis is an arti-
cle by a critic of the well-known DDC that bears the revealing title, “The
Ubiquitous Hierarchy: An Army to Overcome the Threat of a Mob” (Olson,
2004). Dewey’s system is treated as a “privileged” ordering of nature.
Instead of viewing his system as a practical and user-friendly schema for
the people of its, and our, time (McIlwaine, 19971, the author treats
Dewey’s work as an attempt at cultural domination. Viewed from the post-
modern perspective, Dewey and his like revealed their intellectual limits
by attempting to order all knowledge in a single system and in a hierar-
chical fashion. The result, it is claimed, was an embodiment of the biases
of the post-1600 “modern” Western Civilization. Dewey’s critic has not
been alone in applying a dislike of the Enlightenment’s and similar ways
of organizing information in the West, for postmodernists generally tend
to interpret all classification schemes as indicators of unjustified social
control exercised over others by power holders (McCullagh, 2004).
There have been less extreme historical applications of postmodernist
views that have also been recommended as a new theoretical basis for
contemporary information science. Their advocates emphasize the need
for pluralism in the process of categorization, not the complete abandon-
ment of systems. Some see postmodernism as a mandate to have classi-
fications determined by users rather than being created by professionals.
Others, believing that there are many “truths” (or none a t all) and that
all elites have narrow vision, call for the inclusion, at minimum, of pop-
ular terms and concepts in any classification or indexing system (Jasanoff,
2004; Joachim, 2003; Star & Bowker, 1998).
Ironically, as is the case with the more extreme postmodern critics, the
moderates’ visions of sociaUcultura1 diversity in knowledge organization
34 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
seem plausible only because of the rise of those most modern of tech-
nologies, the computer and the Web. For many advocates, the Internet,
search engines, and full-text systems seem to have ended the need for tra-
ditional classification hierarchies and indexing schemes. Few of the post-
modernists appear to have noticed that the Internet has had to turn to
hierarchical classification systems and information professionals’ mod-
ernist methods to avoid overwhelming users.
There has been another blind spot resulting from the application of
“post”approaches to the history of classification.Although postmodernism
is premised on the idea that there is no natural order and thus all is his-
torical, some extreme versions of the anti-classification interpretations
suffer from a lack of attention to history and historical contexts. They
seem unaware, for example, of the long history of research on, and devel-
opment of, user-oriented systems and their philosophicallmethodological
commitments to post-isms may have prevented them from appreciating
work that dates from at least the 1940s, when the first document retrieval
systems were being designed (Griffiths & King, 2002; Saracevic, 1997;
Siatri, 1999). As a result, they attribute an unwarranted degree of cul-
tural insensitivity to the librarians and information professionals of the
modern era. As already mentioned, postmodernists have also failed to
place previous indexing and classification efforts within changing tech-
nological contexts.
References
Abbate, J. (1999).Inuenting the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: A n essay on the diuision of professional labor.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Adkinson, B. W. (1978). Two centuries o f federal information. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross.
Altman, E. (1993).National Science Foundation’s support of information research. In A. Kent
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 52, Suppl. 15, pp. 273-291).
New York: Dekker.
Appleby, J. (1998). The power of history. American Historical Review, 103, 1-14.
Aspray, W. F. (1985). The scientific conceptualization of information: A survey. IEEE Annals
ofthe History of Computing, 7(2), 117-140.
Aspray, W. F. (1999). Command and control, documentation, and library science: The origins
of information science a t the University of Pittsburgh.IEEEAnnals ofthe History of Com-
puting, 21(41.4-20.
Austin, D. (1998). Derek Austin: Developing PRECIS, Preserved Context Index System. Cat-
aloging & Classification Quarterly, 25(2-3), 23-66.
Bates, M. J. (1999a).A tour of information science through the pages of JASZS. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 50,1043-1062.
Bates, M. J. (Ed.). (199913).Special topic issue: The 50th anniversary of the Journal o f t h e
American Society for Information Science: Part 1: The journal, its society, and the future
of print. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(11), 906-1041.
Bates, M. J. (Ed.). (1999~).Special topic issue: The 50th anniversary of the Journal of the
American Society for Information Science: Part 2: Paradigms, models, and methods of
information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12),
1042-1 162.
40 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Today for the American Society for Information Science and t h e Chemical Heritage
Foundation.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowles, M. D. (1999). The information wars: Two cultures and the conflict in information
retrieval, 1945-1999. In M. E. Bowden, T. B. Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 2998 Conference on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems (pp.
156-166). Medford, NJ: Information Today for the American Society for Information Sci-
ence and the Chemical Heritage Foundation.
Braman, S. (2006). The micro- and macroeconomics of information. Annual Review of Infor-
mation Science and Technology, 40,3-52.
Brandhorst, T. (1993). The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). In A. Kent
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 51, Suppl. 14, pp. 208-225).
New York: Dekker.
Braudel, F. (1981). The structures of everyday life: The limits of the possible (S. Reynolds,
Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Brenner, E. H., & Saracevic, T. (1985).Indexing and searching in perspective. Philadelphia:
National Federation of Abstracting and Indexing Services.
Brown, P. (2002a). How a digital idea became a multi-billion dollar business. Logos, 23(3),
128-133.
Brown, P. (2002b). How a digital idea became a multi-billion dollar business: Part 11. Logos,
13(4),212-219.
Brown, P. (2003a). How a digital idea became a multi-billion dollar business: Part 111. Logos,
14(1), 31-36.
Brown, P. (2003b). How a digital idea became a multi-billion dollar business: Part IV. Logos,
24(2), 79-84.
Brown, R. D. (1989). Knowledge is power: The diffusion of information i n early America,
1700-1865.New York Oxford University Press.
Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information retrieval of more than text. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 42, 586-588.
Buckland, M. K. (1992). Emanuel Goldberg, electronic documentation retrieval, and Van-
nevar Bush’s Memex. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43,
284-294.
Buckland, M. K. (1995). The centenary of “Madame Documentation”: Suzanne Briet
1894-1989. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46,235-237.
Buckland, M. K. (1997). What is a “document”?Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science, 48, 804-809.
Buckland, M. K. (1999).The landscape ofinformation science: The American Society for Infor-
mation Science at 62. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50,
1030-1031.
Buckland, M. K., & Hahn, T. B. (Eds.). (1997a). Special topic issue: History of documentation
and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(4).
Buckland, M. K., & Hahn, T. B. (Eds.). (1997b). Special topic issue: History of documentation
and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9).
Buckland, M. K., & Liu, Z. (1996). The history ofinformation science.Annual Review oflnfor-
mation Science and Technology, 30,383416.
42 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Burke, C. (1994).Information and secrecy: Vannevar Bush, Ultra, and the other Memex.
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Burke, C. (1996).A rough road to the information highway. Project Intrex: A view from the
CLR archives. Information Processing & Management, 32,19-32.
Cady, S. A. (1999).Microfilm technology and information systems. In M. E. Bowden, T. B.
Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the History and Her-
itage of Science Information Systems (pp. 177-186).Medford, NJ: Information Today for
the American Society for Information Science and the Chemical Heritage Foundation.
Campbell-Kelly, M. (2003).From airline reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A history of the
software industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Campbell-Kelly, M., & Aspray, W. (1996).Computer: A history of the information machine.
New York Basic Books.
Capurro, R., & Hj~rland,B. (2002).The concept of information. Annual Review of Informa-
tion Science and Technology,37,343-411.
Case, M. (2002).Igniting change in scholarly communication: SPARC, its past, present, and
future. Advances in Librarianship, 26,l-27.
Ceruzzi, P. E. (1998).A history of modern computing. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Chandler, A. D., & Cortada, J . W. (Eds.). (2000).A nation transformed by information: How
information has shaped the United States from colonial times to the present. New York
Oxford University Press.
Chartrand, R. L., Henderson, M. M., & Resnik, L. (Eds.). (1988).ASIS 50th anniversary issue.
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 14(5).
Chemical Abstract Service. (1997).CAS anniuersary, 1907-1997: Celebrating 90th [year].
Columbus, OH: Chemical Abstracts Service.
Chomsky, N. (2002).Syntactic structures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cole, C. (1993).Shannon revisited: Information in terms of uncertainty. Journal of the Amer-
ican Society for Information Science, 44,204-211.
Collen, M. F. (1995).A history of medical informatics in the United States, 1950 to 1990. Indi-
anapolis, IN: American Medical Informatics Association.
Cortada, J . W. (Ed.). (1998).The rise of the knowledge worker. Boston: Buttenvorth-
Heinemann.
Cortada, J . W. (2002).Researching the history of software from the 1960s.ZEEE Annals of
the History ofcomputing, 41(1),72-79.
Cragin, M. (2004).Foster Mohrdardt: Connecting the traditional world of libraries and the
emerging world of information science. Library Trends, 52,833-852.
Cronin, B., & Atkins, H. B. (Eds.). (2000). The web of knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of
Eugene Garfield. Medford, N J Information Today.
Cronin, B., & Davenport, E. (1988).Post-professionalism:Transforming the information heart-
land. London: Taylor Graham.
Cronin, B., Stiffler, M., & Day, D. (1993).The emergent market for information profession-
als: Educational opportunities and implications. Library Trends, 42,257-276.
Crowley, B. (1999).The control and direction of professional education. Journal of the Amer-
ican Society for Information Science, 50,1127-1135.
Dahlin, T. C. (1990).Books and documents on government information po1icy:A selected bib-
liography. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies.
History of Information Science 43
Foucault, M. (1997).The essential works ofMichel Foucault, 195k1984. New York New Press.
Frangsmyr, T. (Ed). (2001). The structure of knowledge: Classification of science and learn-
ing since the Renaissance. Berkeley, CA Office for the History of Science and Technology.
Frohmann, B. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information
science. Library & Information Science Research, 16, 119-138.
Frohmann, B. (1999). The role of the scientific paper in science information systems. In M.
E. Bowden, T. B. Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.),Proceedings ofthe 1998Conference on the
History and Heritage of Science Information Systems (pp. 63-73). Medford, NJ: Informa-
tion Today for the American Society for Information Science and the Chemical Heritage
Foundation.
Frohmann, B. (2004a).Deflating information:From science studies to documentation. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Frohmann, B. (2004b). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information
science. Library & Information Science Research, 16, 119-138.
Furner, J. (2004).“ABrilliant Mind”: Margaret Egan and social epistemology.Library fiends,
52,792-818.
Garfinkel, S. L., & Abelson, H. (1999). Architects ofthe information society: Thirty-fiveyears
ofthe Laboratory for Computer Science at MZT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gimbel, J. (1990). Science, technology and reparations: Exploitation and plunder i n postwar
Germany. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grad, B., & Johnson, L. (Eds.). (2002). [Special issue on the history of the software industry].
ZEEE Annals ofthe History ofcomputing, 24(1).
Graham, R., & Rayward, W. B. (Eds.). (2002a). [Special issue on computer applications in
libraries, part 11. ZEEE Annals ofthe History ofcomputing, 24(2).
Graham, R., & Rayward, W. B. (Eds.). (2002b). [Special issue on computer applications in
libraries, part 21. IEEE Annals ofthe History ofcomputing, 24(3).
Granick, L., & Cornog, M. (1983). The history of NFAIS, 1972-1982. In M. L. Neufeld, M.
Cornog, & I. L. Sperr (Eds.),Abstracting and indexing services in perspective: Miles Con-
rad Memorial Lectures, 1969-1983 (pp. 21-26). Arlington, VA Information Resources
Press.
Griffiths, J., & King, D. (2002). US. information retrieval system evaluation and evolution
(1945-1975). ZEEE Annals ofthe History ofcomputing, 24(3), 35-55.
Gull, C. D. (1987).Information science and technology: From coordinate indexing to the global
brain. Journal ofthe American Society for Znformation Science, 38, 338-374.
Haber, S. (1991). The quest for authority and honor i n the American professions, 1750-1900.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hafner, K. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins ofthe Internet. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Hahn, T. B. (1996). Pioneers of the online age. Information Processing & Management, 32,
33-48.
Hahn, T. B., & Buckland, M. K. (Eds.). (1998).Historical studies i n information science. Med-
ford, NJ: Information Today.
Haigh, T. (2004). “A veritable bucket of facts”: Origins of data base management systems,
1960-1980. In W. B. Rayward & M. E. Bowden (Eds.), The History and Heritage of Sci-
entific and lkchnological Znformation Systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference (pp.
75-88). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
History of Information Science 45
Justice, A. (2004). Information science as a facet of the history of British science: The ori-
gins of the Classification Research Group. In W. B. Rayward & M. E. Bowden (Eds.), The
History and Heritage ofscientific a n d Technological Information Systems: Proceedings of
the 2002 Conference (pp. 267-2801, Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Kaser, R. T., & Kaser, V. C. (2001). BIOSIS: Championing the cause: The first 75 years.
Philadelphia: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services.
Kenzo, G. (2003).Federal security controls over scientifE a n d technical information: History
and current controversy. New York: Novinka Books.
Kevles, D. J. (1978). The physicists: The history ofa scientific community in modern Amer-
ica. New York Knopf.
Kilgour, F. G. (1997). Origins of coordinate searching. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 48, 340-348.
Kister, K.(2002).Eric Moon: The life a n d library times. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland.
Kline, R. (2004). What is information theory a theory of? Boundary work among information
theorists and information scientists in the United States and Britain during the Cold War.
In W. B. Rayward & M. E. Bowden (Eds.), Conference on the History and Heritage ofSci-
entific a n d Technological Information Systems (pp. 15-28). Medford, NJ: Information
Today for the American Society of Information Science and Technology and the Chemical
Heritage Foundation.
Kokabi, M. (1996).The internationalization of MARC. Part I: The emergence and divergence
of MARC. OCLC Systems and Seruices, 12(1),21-31.
Kualnes, F. H. (1999). The history of managing technical information at DuPont. In M. E.
Bowden, T. B. Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the
History a n d Heritage of Science Information Systems (pp. 107-114). Medford, NJ: Infor-
mation Today for the American Society for Information Science and the Chemical Her-
itage Foundation.
La Barre, K. (2004).Weaving webs of significance: The Classification Research Study Group
in the United States and Canada. In W. B. Rayward & M. E. Bowden (Eds.), The History
and Heritage ofScientific and Dchnological Information Systems: Proceedings ofthe 2002
Conference (pp. 249-257). Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
Lamoreaux, N. R., Raff, D. M. G., & Temin, P. (1997). New economic approaches to the study
of business history. Business and Economic History, 26(1), 57-79.
Lesk, M. E. (1996). Gerald Salton, Mar. 8, 1927 to Aug. 28, 1995: In memoriam. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 47, 110-111.
Levenstein, M.(1998). Accounting for growth: Information systems a n d the creation of the
large corporation. Stanford, CA Stanford University Press.
Lewis, J . E. (2002). Spy capitalism: ITEKand the CIA. New Haven, C T Yale University Press.
Library and information science: Historical perspectives [Special issue containing papers
from a Library History Round Table session at the 1984ALA conference] (1985). Journal
of Library History, Philosophy & Comparative Librarianship, 20(2), 120-178.
Lilley, D. B., & Trice, R. W. (1989). A history of information science, 1945-1985. San Diego,
C A Academic Press.
Lipetz, B. A. (1999).Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades. Journal ofthe Amer-
ican Society for Information Science, 50,994-1003.
Lynd, S. (2001). Reflections on radical history. Radical History Review, 79, 104-107.
Lynn, K. S.(1965). The professions in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
History of Information Science 47
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
MacDonald, K. M. (1995). The sociology ofthe professions. Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Machlup, F., & Mansfield, U. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary mes-
sages. New York: Wiley.
MacLeod, R. (1999). Secrets among friends: The Research Information Service and the “spe-
cial relationship” in Allied scientific information and intelligence, 1916-1918. Minerua,
37,201-233.
Makinen, I. (2004). Finnish information services for technology during the first half of the
twentieth century. In W. B. Rayward & M. E. Bowden (Eds.), The History a n d Heritage
of Scientific and Tbchnological Information Systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference
(pp. 300-309). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Marcum, D. B. (2002). Automating the library: The Council on Library Resources. IEEE
Annals of the History of Computing, 24(3), 2-13.
Marloth, H. (1996).Zeittafel zur internationalen Entwicklung des Informationswesens nach
1945 [Chronology of the international development of information science since 19451.
Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://fs-infowiss.phil.uni-sb.de/BuFaTa/thesen.
marloth.html#Zeit
Martin, S. B. (1998).Information technology, employment, and the information sector: Trends
in information employment, 1970-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 49, 1053-1069.
McCallum, S. H. (2002). MARC: Keystone for library automation. IEEE Annals of the His-
tory of Computing, 24(2), 34-39.
McCrank, L. J. (1995). History, archives, and information science. Annual Review of Infor-
mation Science a n d Technology,30,281-382.
McCrank, L. J. (2001). Historical information science: An emerging unidiscippline. Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
McCullagh, C. (2004). The logic of history: Putting postmodernism in perspectiue. London:
Routledge.
McIlwaine, B. H. (1997). The Universal Decimal Classification: Some factors concerning its
origins, development, and influence. Journal of the American Society for Information Sci-
ence, 48, 331-339.
Meadows, A. J. (Ed.). (1987). The origins of information science. London: Taylor Graham,
Institute of Information Scientists.
Meyer, E., & Funkhouser, N. F. (Eds.). (1998). Papers invited to celebrate the 50th anniver-
sary of the Division of Chemical Information. Journal of Chemical Information a n d Com-
puter Science, 38(6).
Meyer, R. W. (1997).Monopoly power and electronicjournals. Library Quarterly, 67,325-349.
Mikhailov, A. I., Chernyi, A. I., & Gilairevskii, R. S. (1984). The ideas of Lenin on the prob-
lems, methods, and forms of the scientific information activity. In R. H. Burger (Trans.),
Scientific communications a n d informatics (pp. 247-260). Arlington, VA: Information
Resources Press.
Miksa, F. L. (1998). The DOC, the universe of knowledge, h the post-modern library. Albany,
Ny: OCLC Forest Press.
48 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Miksa, S. (2002).Pigeonholes and punchcards: Identifying the division between library clas-
sification research a n d information retrieval research, 1952-1970.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Miles, W. D. (1982).A history of the National Library of Medicine: The nation’s treasury of
medical knowledge. Bethesda, MD: U S . National Library of Medicine.
Mizzaro, S. (1997).Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science, 48,810-832.
Mohanrajan, P. A. (1992).Library science: Dr. S. R. Ranganathan’s contribution, 1924-1944:
An analysis. Madras, India: Mohanavalli Publications.
Muddiman, D. (1998).The universal library as modem utopia: The information society of H.
G. Wells. Library History, 14,85-101.
Muddiman, D. (2004).Red information science: J. D. Bernal and the nationalization of sci-
entific information in Britain from 1930to 1949.In W.B. Rayward & M. E. Bowden (Eds.),
The History a n d Heritage of Scientific a n d Technological Information Systems: Proceed-
ings of the 2002 Conference (pp. 258-2661. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Muranushi, T. (1994).The framework and methodology for the history of information. Library
& Information Science, 32,43-64.
National Science Foundation, Office of Science Information Service. (1960).A review of sci-
ence information activities: Fiscal years 1951-1959.Washington, DC: The Foundation.
Neufeld, M. L., Cornog, M., & Sperr, I. L. (1983).Abstracting a n d indexing services in per-
spective: Miles Conrad Memorial Lectures, 1969-1983. Arlington, VA Information
Resources Press.
Novick, P. (1988).That noble dream: The “objectivity question” a n d the American historical
profession. Cambridge, U K Cambridge University Press.
Nyce, J. M., & Kahn, P. (1989).Innovation, pragmaticism, and technological continuity: Van-
nevar Bush’s Memex. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40,
214-220.
Nyce, J. M., & Kahn, P. (Eds.). (1991).From Memex to hypertext: Vannevar Bush a n d the
mind’s machine. San Diego, C A Academic Press.
Ohlman, H. (1999).Mechanical indexing goes public [Pioneers’reminiscencesl. In M. E. Bow-
den, T.B. Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the His-
tory and Heritage of Science Information Systems (p. 276).Medford, NJ: Information
Today, Inc. for the American Society for Information Science and the Chemical Heritage
Foundation.
Olaisen, J., Munch-Peterson, E., & Wilson, P. (Eds.). (1995).Information science: From the
development of the discipline to social interaction. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian Univer-
sity Press.
Olson, H. A. (2004).The ubiquitous hierarchy: An army to overcome the threat of a mob.
Library fiends, 52,604-617.
Olui6-Vukovi6, V. (1997).Bradford’s distribution: From the classical bibliometric “law”to the
more general stochastic models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
48,8334342.
Brom, A. (2000).Information science, historical changes and social aspects: ANordic outlook.
Journal of Documentation, 56,12-26.
Osborn, A. D. (1991).From Cutter and Dewey to Mortimer Taube and beyond: A complete
century of change in cataloguing and classification. Cataloging & Classification Quar-
terly, 12(3-4), 35-50.
History of Information Science 49
Reid, R. (1997).Architects ofthe web: 1,000 days that built the future of business. New York:
Wiley.
Richards, P. S. (1981). Gathering enemy scientific information in wartime: The OSS and the
periodical reproduction program. Journal ofLibrary History, 16,253-264.
Richards, P. S. (1994). Scientific information in wartime: The Allied-German rivalry,
1939-1945. Stamford, C T Greenwood Press.
Richards, P. S. (1999).The Soviet overseas information empire and the implications ofits dis-
integration. In M. E. Bowden, T. B. Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.),Proceedings ofthe 1998
Conference on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems (pp. 201-214).
Medford, NJ: Information Today for the American Society for Information Science and the
Chemical Heritage Foundation.
Ross, D. (1995). Grand narrative in American historical writing: From romance to uncer-
tainty. American Historical Review, 100,651-677.
Royle, N. (Ed.). (2000).Deconstructions: A user's guide. New York Palgrave.
Rubin, R. (2000).Foundations of library a n d information science. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Ryan, M. P. (1998). Knowledge diplomacy: Global competition & the politics of intellectual
property. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Saracevic, T. (1992). Information science: Origin, evolution and relations. In P. Vakkari & B.
Cronin (Eds.). Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical a n d
theoretical perspectives (pp. 5-27). London: Taylor Graham.
Saracevic, T. (1997). Users lost: Reflections on the past, future, and limits of information sci-
ence. SIGIR Forum, 31(2), 16-27.
Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 50,1051-1062.
Satija, M. P. (1992). S. R. Rangunathan a n d the method ofscience. New Delhi, India: Aditya
Prakashan.
Satoh, T. (1999). Restoration of Japanese academic libraries and development of library and
information science: The contributions of Shigenori Baba. In M. E. Bowden, T. B. Hahn,
& R. V. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe 1998 Conference on the History a n d Heritage
of Science Information Systems (pp. 215-220). Medford, NJ: Information Today for the
American Society for Information Science and the Chemical Heritage Foundation.
Schement, J. R. (1990). Porat, Bell, and the information society reconsidered: The growth of
information work in the early twentieth century. Information Processing & Management,
26,449-465.
Schiffrin, A. (2000). The business of books: How international conglomerates took over pub-
lishing a n d changed the way we read. London: Verso.
Schrader, A. M. (1984). In search of a name: Information science and its conceptual
antecedents. Library a n d Information Science, 6,227-271.
Schultz, H., & Georgy, U. (1994).From CA to CAS online (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Seidel, R. W.(1999). Secret scientific communities: Classification and scientific communica-
tion in the DOE and DOD. In M. E. Bowden, T. B. Hahn, & R. V. Williams (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings ofthe 1998Conference on the History and Heritage ofscience Informution Systems
(pp. 46-60). Medford, NJ: Information Today for the American Society for Information
Science and the Chemical Heritage Foundation.
History of Information Science 51
Shapiro, F. R. (1992). Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing, and citation analysis: The
neglected legal literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43,
337-339.
Sharma, R. N. (Ed.). (1992). S.R. Ranganathan and the West. New Delhi, India: Sterling
Publishers.
Shera, J . H., & Cleveland, D. (1977). The history and foundation of information science.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 12,249-275.
Siatri, R. (1999). The evolution of user studies. Libri, 49, 132-141.
Smiraglia, R. (2002). The progress of theory in knowledge organization. Library ?).ends, 50,
330-349.
Smith, K.W.(Ed.). (19981. OCLC, 1967-1997: Thirty years of furthering access to the world‘s
information. New York: Haworth Press.
Smith, L. C. (1991). Memex as an image of potentiality revisited. In J. M. Nyce & P. Kahn
(Eds.), From Memex to hypertext: Vannevar Bush and the mind’s machine (pp. 281-286).
San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Spicher, K. M. (1996). The development of the MARC format. Cataloging and Classification
Quarterly, 21(3-4), 75-90.
Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. (Eds.). (1998). How classification works [Special issue]. Library
?).ends, 42(2).
Starr, P. (1987). The politics of numbers. New York: Russell-Sage.
Stewart, R. K. (1993). The ofice of technical services. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Uti-
lization, 1 5 , 4 6 7 7 .
Stiglitz, J . E. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century
economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1441-1478.
Stockwell, F. (2001). The history of information storage and retrieval. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
Stoianovich, T. (1976).French historical method: The Annales paradigm. Ithaca, Ny: Cornell
University Press.
Stone, A. (1999). How America got on-line. Armonk, Ny: M. E. Sharpe.
Sweeney, L. (2003). That’s AT? A history and critique of the fwld (Technical Report, CMU-CS-
03-106). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science.
Tague-Sutcliffe, J . (1994). Quantitative methods in documentation. In B. C. Vickery (Ed.),
Fifty years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation reuiew (pp. 147-188).
London: Aslib.
Temin, P. (1987). The fall of the Bell System:A study in prices andpolitics. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Thompson, T. (2004). The fifty-year role of the United States Air Force in advancing infor-
mation techno1ogy:A history of the Rome, New York,Ground Electronics Laboratory (Stud-
ies in American history, Vol. 10). Lewiston, Ny: Edwin Mellen Press.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, C T Graphics
Press.
Vaden, W.M. (1992). The Oak Ridge Technical Information Center: A trailblazer in federal
documentation. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S.Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Tech-
nical Information.
52 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Vakkari, P., & Cronin, B. (Eds.). (1992).Conceptions of library and informution science: His-
torical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Taylor Graham.
Varlejs, J. (1999).The continuing professional education role ofASIS: Fifty years of learning
together, reaching out, seeking identity. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 50,1032-1036.
Verdu, S. (1998).Fifty years of Shannon theory. IEEE Dunsuctions on Information Theory,
44,2057-2078.
Vickery, B. C. (Ed.). (1994).Fitly years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation
review. London: Aslib.
Vickery, B. C. (2000).Scientific communication in history. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Vickery, B. C. (2004).A long search for informution (Occasional Papers 213).Champaign:
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Volodin, B. F. (2000).History of librarianship, library history, or information history: A view
from Russia. Library Quarterly, 70, 446-467.
Walker, T. D. (1997).Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1938-1942:Domain as reflected
in characteristics of authorship and citation. Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science, 48,361-368.
Warner, J. (2004).Humanizing information technology. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Warner, J . (2005).Labor in information systems. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 39,551-575.
Wersig, G. (1993).Information science: The study of postmodern knowledge usage. Informa-
tion Processing & Management, 29,229-239.
White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998).Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analy-
sis of information science, 1972-1995.Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 49,327-355.
Williams, M. E. (2001).Highlights of the online database industry and the Internet: 2001.
National Online 2001: Proceedings, 1-4.
Williams, M. R. (1985).A history of computing technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Williams, R. V. (1997).The documentation and special libraries movements in the United
States, 1910-1960.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48,775-781.
Williams, R. V. (2005).Bibliography ofthe history of information science, 1900-2004 (5th ed.).
Retrieved December 12,2005,from www.libsci.sc.ed1~hob/istchron/Isbiblio5.pdf
Williams, R. V., & Bowden, M. E. (1999).Chronology of chemical information science. Philadel-
phia: Chemical Heritage Foundation. Retrieved December 12,2005,from www.chem
heritage.org/explore/timeline/CHCHRON.HTM
Williams, R. V., Whitmire, L., & Bradley, C. (1997).Bibliography of the history of informa-
tion science in North America, 1900-1995. Journal of the American Society for Informa-
tion Science, 48,373379,
Williams, R.V., Whitmire, L., & Bradley, C. (1998).Bibliography of the history of information
science in North America, 1900-1997. In T. B. Hahn & M. Buckland (Eds.), Historical
studies in informution science (pp. 296-314). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Williams, R. V., & Zachert, M. J . K. (1983).Knowledge put to work: SLA a t 75. Special
Libraries, 74,370-382.
History of Information Science 53